Notes and thoughts on the world at large, from the point of view of those of us at ground level.
30 April 2006
President to America: Oil is getting more expensive. Too bad.
While it is true that reality is that the President can't really do much to affect oil prices (See Dan Cleary's blog on this subject), the perception is much more important. While the average American doesn't seem to know that the price of gas is affected by a number of factors - OPEC pricing, refining capacity, political stability in regions with large reserves, problems with delivery - they understand one thing: they are paying a whole lot more than they used to. They don't want to hear a president tell them there's nothing he can do about it. They think, "He's the most powerful man on the planet for cryin' out loud."
If I were a Republican candidate for dog-catcher, I'd be trying to put as much daylight between me and the President right about now.
07 April 2006
FEMA Update
The Border
04 April 2006
They Can't Handle the Truth
In a new Fairleigh Dickinson University poll, respondents expressed their disapproval of Governor Corzine's new budget, in which the administration raises the sales tax by a penny and cuts various state services, and of the job the Governor himself is doing. Among other things, Corzine's disapproval rating increased from 16% to 36%, and those who had "very unfavorable" or "poor" ratings of the Governor increased as well.
A closer reading of the poll, however, reveals a very NIMBY-ish attitude amongst the 685 registered voters sampled. While decrying the increase in the sales tax, a majority say it's a bad idea to not restore the property tax rebates, and that it is fine with them if taxes are raised on things they might not use, or use infrequently, such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Selling a property worth over a million dollars? Buying a luxury car worth more than $45,000? Me neither. Most of the people who are in the same boat think that taxes on those items should go up.
Since those employed by state government are likely to be average working stiffs, and therefore Democrats, Republicans think cutting state jobs is a fine way to cut spending. Democrats, not surprisingly, think it a lousy one. The list goes on.
A previous discussion alluded to the belief that the public was "misled" by both Corzine and his opponent, Doug Forrester, since both candidates promised to cut taxes and/or increase rebates. Corzine, of course, is taking the heat, since he won the election. But I'll bet the Forrester would be wondering, too, why he wanted this job if he had won instead of Corzine.
Somebody once told me not to complain about something if you couldn't offer a solution to the problem, or at least a better one than what was on the table. I hear a whole lot of complaining, but haven't found anybody who says they have a better way to fix the state budget mess.
01 April 2006
Well, He Is a Banker
Get over it.
Unlike the federal government, which may annually run budget deficits, New Jersey, like most states, is required by the state constitution to have a balanced budget in place at the start of the fiscal year. Failure to do so, or balancing the budget using extensive borrowing (which was outlawed by the New Jersey Supreme Court beginning this fiscal year) or "one-shot" revenue gimmicks causes the state's bond rating to drop, which makes it more expensive for the state to borrow money. I am not a banker, but that doesn't sound very good.
During the recent gubernatorial campaign, both Corzine and his opponent, Douglas Forrester, made many promises in the area of the state's finances, including various forms of reducing the average homeowner's property tax burden. The public found Corzine's plans for the state to be more credible (or at least palatable) than those of Forrester. The end result is that Corzine is elected, by something like an 11-point margin.
Then, reality set in. Raise your hands if you actually expected either candidate to follow through on his promises, at least in the first year of office. Now put them down. You are excused from this conversation.
In the last couple of weeks, much hay has been made about the Governor reneging on his campaign promises in which he allegedly said he wouldn't raise taxes. Yes, he did make several statements to the effect that he didn't want to raise taxes, that they weren't on his agenda. That is not the same as saying that he wouldn't raise them. Unlike his opponent, who (foolishly) took a no-tax pledge, Corzine never explicitly ruled them out.
But even if he did, so what? Campaign promises are not legally binding contracts. It is up to the individual voter to decide whether or not he or she believes what the candidate says at the time, and perhaps more importantly, whether he/she believes that that particular candidate will do a better job relative to the other guy.
In this most recent race for governor, both Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester made promises that even then seemed rather far-fetched. Corzine vowed to increase property tax rebates. Forrester promised to cut property taxes 30% in three years. Corzine promised greater levels of funding for just about everything. Forrester said he would cut taxes and maintain services. All this after the state supreme court outlawed borrowing as a means to balance the budget (as the result of a lawsuit brought by Republicans). The list goes on and on.
Politicians make promises all the time. The public knows this. Elections are for separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, elections between two non-incumbents turn into whether or not you believe each candidate's chicken-in-every-pot promise. This election, the people knew (at least those who pay attention to what goes on on a daily basis) what problems were facing New Jersey, and decided that Corzine was more credible.